[sig-policy] Report on prop-056: IPv4 soft landing

To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: [sig-policy] Report on prop-056: IPv4 soft landing
From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:06:04 +0900
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)


prop-056: IPv4 soft landing
________________________________________________________________________


Dear SIG members

Below is a summary of discussion on the proposal since the last
summary was posted on 5 February 2008. We encourage you to continue
discussion on the mailing list before it is presented at the Policy
SIG session at APNIC 25 on Thursday 28 February 2008.

We particularly encourage those of you who have previously not taken
part in the discussion to express your views:

    - Do you support or oppose this proposal?

    - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
      tell the community about your situation.

    - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?

    - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?

    - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
      effective?


Discussion statistics
---------------------

Number of posts

   - Since last summary:                         3
   - Since proposal posted (24 January 2008):    5

People participating in discussions

   - Since last summary:                         3
   - Since proposal posted (24 January 2008):    4

Economy of origin of participants:               1 from Australia
                                                 1 from Japan
                                                 2 from outside AP

Summary of discussion since last summary
----------------------------------------

    - In the light of Geoff Huston's projected figures on the impact
      of tightening the utilisation criteria, should this proposal
      be withdrawn?

        - Saving addresses is not the sole aim of this proposal

        - The proposal sends a clear message to the community about
          the need to make the transition to IPv6

        - The projected figures may not be reflected in reality


Full details of the proposal, including a link to the previous
discussion summary posted to this list, can be found at:

    http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-056-v001.html